Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Ks-M9

Quality, NOT Quantity

I would like to disagree a little with regard to the position that some users have had with this candidacy, I do not intend to change their vote, but I think that personally I am annoyed that some users think that the number of editions and the antiquity Of a user is determinant in any candidature to administrator (and this happens in many Wikimedia wikis).

If we were to demand that a user have so many editions and so much seniority, I assure you that half of the current administrators would not be. Ks-M9 is a trusted user, he has collaborated on several occasions with the elimination of vandalism in various wikis and in my opinion, is one of the few that dedicates almost his entire day to this activity.

I know that this is not my candidacy, but I had to go through these same questions when I applied to become an administrator in es.wikinews, and yes we continue with that thought that in my view is quite silly, we would be throwing away several Hands that could help us a lot more than they think.

I wish the fate of the candidate and if this is not successful, I hope you continue to collaborate as you have done all this time. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 23:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC) PD: Apologies if my English is not good.

Sorry, the number of the kind of edits we have been referring to is 0. I don't think anyone of us was looking for a million edits, but at least something. Vogone (talk) --23:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments after closure

Moved here from the main RfA. —MarcoAurelio 11:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure the best way to deal with this situation is attacking the opposers? The "requisite" in question, by the way, is: "Be a currently active contributor on Meta. This is a subjective, not an objective, measure and there is no official post count", an explicitly subjective criterion. I understand you may be frustrated with Stemoc's accusations, but perhaps you should be concluding more from these opposes than just "[t]here are people who [] do not know how to trust [] users". You are by no means the first user to fail a meta RFA, nor the first one to fail a meta RFA for the reasons listed above. At least I do not doubt your "good intentions to help in Meta", but would prefer actual involvement in the community before granting access. These are two distinct things, that's all. Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, this RfA had some of the silliest opposes I've ever seen here. Opposing due to a lack of involvement in some arbitrary namespace, without even addressing whether they would use the tools well for the specific area that they were requesting them in? Truly a step back for this community. I've done a pretty complete look over the candidate's contributions, and it seems like they do a lot of work cleaning up the translation space and have a clear use for the tools in that area. If that isn't Meta-Wiki involvement, I don't know what is. There's hardly anything going on in the Meta: namespace anyway - just the usual back and forth over Flow, and the occasional request at RfH. He's not an admin, so there's no need for him to be commenting at RfH yet, and if he doesn't want to wade into Meta:Babel and such, who cares? There is far more to Meta-Wiki than that namespace, and almost all of the use for the sysop bit lies outside of it. Sorry, this has been a bit ramble-y, but I think the opposers here do need someone calling them out on their nonsense. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This may be your opinion, if you think this kind of experience is not required, feel free to think that and support (as you did), but let other users have their opinion as well. Thank you. --Vogone (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course. If I weren't allowing other opinions, then I'd strike them out instead ;-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What Vogone says is right, when I was neutral and gave my comment I was just fishing out responses if you will be active or not in the future and you answer me back, that's what I wanted. I don't think you should feel discouraged :-D.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 11:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

RfAs are a way for the community to assess whether a particular user can or cannot be trusted to become an administrator based on a set of criteria that can be set on policy and also based on subjective views. Users are free to support, oppose, remain neutral or don't vote at all. Users were freely allowed to express their opinions as expected, but this RfA has turned in the very example of what an RfA oughtn't, a battleground. Without regards on what might or might not happen on other wikis, which I don't care, insulting the candidate as happened here shouldn't be tolerated, and I very much understand Ks-M9 reaction because I don't remember an RfA in which a candidate has been so mistreated as this one just for trying to help. This is not because it is my nominee nor because he was opposed, but because the way it was, with adjectives such as "hat collector", "pig in a poke", etc. Seriously? The way some users have behaved here is a shame. —MarcoAurelio 11:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(My opinion about this comment) Vogone, this is a decision that I have made. My decision is not a personal attack to the opponents as you point it out. Now do you take it bad yourself? Do you really think this is an attack? Be a little more tolerable, I'm not a vandal. What I read apart, "Be a currently active contributor on Meta. This is a subjective, not an objective, measure and there is no official post count" This condition doesn't mentions the namespace "Meta" that namespace does not exist as a requirement to be a regular administrator. If I had been elected, I would not misuse the tools. I am also in hours that other administrators are not active. There are not only discussions in that namespace, there are other discussions in other namespaces.. Everyone has their own way of contributing to projects. The admin tools I have used in this project, including deletion of off-topic pages (like this case) in accordance to the policy about the project. It's quite unfortunate that they think that about my work. As I said, I will only be a normal user and I prefer not apply again because the community demands too much to obtain this right. I am a volunteer who knows about policies, and not a simple user who is dedicated to collecting rights. And globally I have no interest in the GS or Steward role, only GR is ok for me. This discussion can be continued on my discussion page if we wish. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 12:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC).

Let's all move along, please. —MarcoAurelio 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure if this is a misunderstanding ("lost in translation"), but there is no point in continuing this discussion. --Vogone (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)